Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

285 results for “capital gains”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,286 Delhi2,619 Bangalore1,056 Chennai900 Ahmedabad752 Kolkata731 Jaipur625 Hyderabad409 Pune322 Chandigarh285 Indore284 Karnataka187 Surat172 Cochin165 Raipur134 Rajkot99 Nagpur93 Cuttack91 Agra86 Calcutta85 Lucknow80 Visakhapatnam77 Guwahati56 Amritsar55 SC40 Telangana36 Ranchi31 Dehradun27 Panaji19 Patna19 Jodhpur18 Allahabad13 Jabalpur13 Varanasi11 Kerala10 Rajasthan5 Orissa4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income54 Section 26337 Section 10(38)33 Section 6828 Section 143(3)28 Section 153A27 Section 250(6)25 Section 13224 Section 14823 Long Term Capital Gains

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: \nDr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

10(38) of\nthe Act.\n2.7 That as per the details of statement of long term capital gains\ntransaction, tax exempt under Section

Showing 1–20 of 285 · Page 1 of 15

...

22

Capital Gains13

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 716/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 705/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 711/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 710/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 717/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 714/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 708/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 718/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 719/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srinivastava, Spl.Counsel

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 153ASection 153A(1)Section 250(6)

capital gain to them which was exempted under section 10(38) of the Act by manipulating in the price of the shares

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 655/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

capital gains exempted under section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 610/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

capital gains exempted under section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 483/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Gupta

Section 148Section 45Section 54

Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this juncture drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A) pointing out there from that the Ld. CIT(A) had found that identical issue had been dealt with by the ITAT in the case of Smt. Radha Devi Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 1095/Chd/2014 dt. 13/10/2017

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 482/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Gupta

Section 148Section 45Section 54

Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this juncture drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A) pointing out there from that the Ld. CIT(A) had found that identical issue had been dealt with by the ITAT in the case of Smt. Radha Devi Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 1095/Chd/2014 dt. 13/10/2017

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 241/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

capital gain for the purpose of section 115JB. The relevant part of the order of the Coordinate Bangalore Bench is reproduced as under: “16. Clause (ii) to Explanation to section 115JB lays down that the amount of income to which provisions of section 10, other than provisions of sub-section (38

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 219/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 221/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 217/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

10(38). That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (Appeals)-3 was further not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs. 2,34,34,280/- on account of alleged commission expenses alleged paid by the appellant for arranging alleged entries in respect of long term capital gain invoking the provisions of Section